I simply wanted to add a different perspective into a discussion with the small hope it might contribute to the discussion.

Not that I am aware of the technical aspect of canopy design, but I believe gear manufactures would profit from a greater sizing scheme than currently used

Why not make the downsizing a lesser degree, it's proactive, it address the downsizing issues, it would generate more canopy sales, and instead of going down 2 canopy sizes as I mentioned it could be 4 sizes where the sizing scheme is simply changed to a lesser degree of downsizing progression with the smaller sized micro canopies.

It wouldn't effect container manufactures, and the canopy industry would be proactive in resolving a problem and increasing sales at the same time.

As Bill Booth mentioned, not much can be changed with he gear, but perhaps the downsizing of sizes could address this problem from a positive perspective if it's is technically possible.

Can we stop the squabbling and, at least have a discussion about what jinlee has said.

It seems to make more sense than almost anything else said about HP Canopies on the multiple threads on this subject (And yes I include myself in that)

>Can we stop the squabbling and, at least have a discussion about what >jinlee has said.

A few points:

1) Some manufacturers already do this. They will build any size you like. Didn't seem to make much of a difference.

2) If people were downsizing one size at a time, and each jump was too much of a jump in performance, then such a scheme might make sense. However, that's not the big problem IMO. Jinlee himself referred to the problem cases where people go down two sizes at a time. Whether they jump from 150 to a 120 by making two size jumps or four wouldn't seem to make a bit of difference.

>Can we stop the squabbling and, at least have a discussion about what >jinlee has said.

A few points:

1) Some manufacturers already do this. They will build any size you like. Didn't seem to make much of a difference.

2) If people were downsizing one size at a time, and each jump was too much of a jump in performance, then such a scheme might make sense. However, that's not the big problem IMO. Jinlee himself referred to the problem cases where people go down two sizes at a time. Whether they jump from 150 to a 120 by making two size jumps or four wouldn't seem to make a bit of difference.

So Bill, where do we go now?

Common sense doesn't work (Highly loaded reserves anyone?)

Training doesn't work Not enough trainers and not mandated (I'm talking about across all DZ's and not the people like you Bill that are doing their best)

Internal regulation doesn't work as there seems to be no will to implement it.

1) Additional requirements are starting to appear. The B license canopy proficiency card is the latest addition in terms of canopy training requirements, and I have a feeling there is more to come as the bodies pile up.

2) DZ's are starting to ban swooping, which will solve part of the problem - it will reduce fatalities from intentional swoops. If the fatalities continue at this rate expect this to expand.

3) DZ's are also starting to pay more attention to canopy flight, and are being more proactive about separating landing areas and getting on people who swoop in the main area.

But in the end nothing we can do (short of banning small canopies) will stop it - and even that wouldn't be a 100% solution, since you can kill yourself under a Navigator.

What on earth makes you think there will be a ban on small canopies? What constitutes "small"?

I think perhaps he means on a local level....and DZO's have the power to ban anything they like.

They can also decide on a definition of "small" to be whatever suits them.

The swooping pond closure is an illustration of this point, and will prolly be followed by others. Its not a huge step to see other bans coming into effect if the rate of death and injury under open canopies doesn't show a decrease.

After 20 years of inaction, though, things are slowly starting to be put into practice reduce the toll.

I think perhaps he means on a local level....and DZO's have the power to ban anything they like.

They can also decide on a definition of "small" to be whatever suits them.

The swooping pond closure is an illustration of this point, and will prolly be followed by others. Its not a huge step to see other bans coming into effect if the rate of death and injury under open canopies doesn't show a decrease.

After 20 years of inaction, though, things are slowly starting to be put into practice reduce the toll.

Thanks Tim. Well said.

Thanks to the tireless efforts of some wise people here and at many DZ's, things ARE changing. The people who are causing the carnage will soon be pushed out of most DZ's, making the skies safer for the rest of us.

Why do people call swooping a 'discipline' when the kids continue to kill and injure themselves under perfectly functioning main canopies? That's not 'discipline'.

Swooping is not part of the sport and needs to be eliminated at DZ's where people are trying to land safely after making a skydive.

They shouldn't be mixed. It's pretty well accepted that people need to separate landing areas, and/or hop n pop loads for Canopy Piloting. If that isn't happening you have a cultural and/or DZ issue. You can fix that by being proactive at your dz, or choosing one that advocates safer practices.

How many serious swoop comps have you been to in the last 3 years? Crashes are rare to say the least. Of course they do happen from time to time. Very rarely are they anything more than a bruised ego.

Quote:

Do you have any fresh ideas that will actually make a difference?

Educate yourself on what canopy piloting really is? And no, I don't mean go and watch a few beer line swoops. Actually go and educate yourself on the competitive side of the discipline. Talk to the seasoned pilots and you'll find there's an incredible amount of science, and technique to the discipline (as with any skydiving discipline). You'd probably be surprised how much thought, planning, and practice goes into becoming a good competitive pilot.

Quote:

You already know what I recommend.

Not sure how you're qualified to recommend anything. You clearly haven't educated yourself on the Canopy Piloting side of the sport. That statement is about as absurd as me making Crew recommendations. I've never been anything more than a distant spectator.

If we equated canopies to motorcycles, we'd have scooters going 20 mph with crotch rockets going 80 mph all on the same race course. Or another analogy, slow Cessnas and F-15s landing together. (And yes two of these slow Cessnas can also collide.)

This seems to have come from the complex evolution of parachutes first being a way to drop to the ground, next evolving to become an actual flying wing, then eventually pushing the limits and performance of this wing. Combine this with the culture of "personal flying" and the freedom of skydiving, and we have no regulation of these types of canopies -- or ways of flying them. So we have "slipped through the cracks" somehow avoiding regulation and oversight that accompanies using vehicles that can go fast and can kill.

To me (as a relatively new jumper) it seems somewhat insane that we have no well-established universal training and rules for flying in common airspace (not yet in landing pattern), for landing patterns, and for flying smaller/faster canopies. Would any airplane pilot be allowed to spiral down near the airport? Would the pilot try to see what the first plane did to decide what direction to land? Would multiple planes be coming down together with the pilot having to "keep his head on a swivel" to avoid a collision? Would we let a single engine Cessna pilot fly an F-15 just because he/she could afford it? (Yes I know parachute does not equal airplane and we are not limited to a runway.)

>Would the pilot try to see what the first plane did to decide what direction to land?

At uncontrolled airports, yes. Or he might listen to the radio chatter and realize they were landing to the north, or he might call for information on what people were doing.

But if he was first to land - he'd just pick a direction, and anyone following him would have to either land in the same direction or wait long enough for him to clear the runway. A wise pilot will self-announce on CTAF to notify other pilots of what he's doing.

>Would multiple planes be coming down together with the pilot having to "keep his >head on a swivel" to avoid a collision?

Yes. Quite often there is a lot of traffic at uncontrolled airports and there is a LOT of both "head on a swivel" action and "46 lima, are you the twin with the blue wings on extended final?" chatter. Even at controlled airports you'll often hear controllers say "you're following the Beech turning base now, report when you have him in sight" - and then they expect _you_ to keep him in sight and avoid him.

>Would we let a single engine Cessna pilot fly an F-15 just because he/she could afford it?

Well, no, because only the military operates F-15's. But a C152 pilot could by a Bonanza and go kill himself with it. (Which is why they're called doctor killers.)

That's not to say that's a good idea, of course. But we're dealing with many of the same problems that general aviation faces, and even general aviation, with over a century of experience, doesn't always get it right.

Shows how little I know . But I hope you get the point, at least at airports with lots of traffic (and lot's of passengers) - they put in various rules and controls. Not that that is THE solution, just something to consider as part of a broad spectrum approach.

I sometimes wonder if providing 2 way radio o all jumped on a load would help. The problem is that our wings have become maneuverable enough that it would help. But I don't see skydivers being disciplined enough to make it work. First thing that would happen in the US is most jumpers screaming about their liberties being taken away.

There simply isn't the desire to mitigate the risk of collision by all reasonable means.

To me (as a relatively new jumper) it seems somewhat insane that we have no well-established universal training and rules for flying in common airspace (not yet in landing pattern), for landing patterns, and for flying smaller/faster canopies.

If we would simply better follow some established rules it would help. Read the following and think about how these rules would read when applied to canopy flight. They really match up quite well, plus, they have been in existance for many years. http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/...Name=navRulesContent

Search for FAR 91.113. (Part of it is in the Appendix of the USPA SIM).

Skydivers are simply ignoring these very well thought out and beneficial rules.